Why Obama Is Still Committed To Attacking Syria

REUTERS/Philippe WojazerFrance's President Francois Hollande (L) and U.S. President Barack Obama walk to the family photo session at the G8 summit at Camp David, Maryland May 19, 2012. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer

Yesterday, the U.K.'s House of Commons rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's motion for military action, while the U.S. Congress is demanding a say and the UN Security Council has failed to agree on military action.

White House officials on Thursday signaled a desire to act quickly in Syria, on the U.S.'s own timetable and unilaterally, if necessary.

They cited a concern that waiting longer would inflame debates in the U.S. and Europe, while providing Syria more of an opportunity to cover its tracks and giving Syria's allies time to whip up international opposition to U.S. strikes.

That concern is justified since the Britain's House of Commons rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's motion for military action in Syria, driving a wedge of sorts between America and its closest ally. Then Germany ruled out participating in a strike on Syria. (France reaffirmed its support of a strike.)

And according to a Russian adviser (via the BBC), the Kremlin welcomed the rejection of Cameron and is "actively working to avoid any scenario involving use of force in Syria." Iran and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah have both threatened retaliation to any Western strike.

"What's being contemplated is of such a limited and narrow nature that it's not ... imperative for bringing in different capabilities from different countries," a senior administration official told WSJ.

A senior administration official told CBS News late Thursday that on Friday the administration will release a declassified version of an intelligence report that contains "very convincing" evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons its own people.